Bartolomey

[sarapuk]

This force can be unknown and unknowable. The force can be unknown but knowable. The forum exists because as reasonable people,me believe the unknown will be made known.

It that regard the unknown and unknowable could be grouped into the categories of fantasy or science fiction. In fantasy, elves, fairies,demons and spirits would be associated with the disaster. These constructs are not real and never were. We can rule out boogie man type explanations Any explanation of a fantastic nature can be dismissed.

Science fiction, on the other hand are plausible causes except the discovery of them, then technology to produce them and the laws that govern them are yet to be realized. This encompasses cryptid life forms terrestrial and otherwise. It includes wave and beam technologies and mechanisms which were not there in '59.

Sounds a bit contradictory. You are ruling out explanations of a fantastic nature and then say science fiction is plausible !?

[sarapuk]

correct translation is "elemental force" (стихийная сила) not "natural force" (природная сила, естественная сила)

Let's face it, people can make mistakes or just say something that may mean something slightly different than what they intended to convey. We have a force that caused the demise of the Dyatlov Group. We don't know what that force was. We don't need to keep making mountains out of mole hills, do we?

[sarapuk]

Weather could not have forced them to abandon the tent, because the Dyatlov Pass tragedy began to be written even before the expedition. Nor could weather remove the material evidence of a planned crime. Neither the diaries nor Zolotaryov’s camera disappeared.

Weather may have played a part, but not necessarily the part or parts that killed the entire Dyatlov Group. It still seems strange to me that they chose to pitch a tent on that very exposed mountain slope. Exposed to strong winds, which certainly force temperatures down considerably. The slope wasn't steep, so it was not a dangerous place as far as potential snow slides were concerned. Just very exposed to wind. If anyone has been out in exposed locations in temperatures well below freezing, they will know just how brutal the wind factor can be.

[sarapuk]

When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.

All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?

You have a point.

I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.

[GlennM]

For Sarapuk. To clarify my comment, consider a comparison between a fairy tale like Peter Pan and Science Fiction  20000 Leagues. Fairies like Tinkerbelle are not real, never were and never will be. Please do not go simple on me .

 In 20000 leagues, the Nautilus was not real, but even at the time  with certain future developments in propulsion and metallurgy, it could be developed into a real machine. Today, of course, we have submarines , but no Tinkerbelles.

I think you already knew this but were argumentative just to keep a bit of energy going in the forum.

If you want something to ponder, then rationalize which came first, the fire at the cedar or the digging at the ravine.

[Ziljoe]

When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.

All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?

You have a point.

I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.

think we need to clear up the definitions here. You are mixing up 'mystical' with 'mysterious' or 'unproven.'The word mystical comes from the Greek mystikos, meaning a secret spiritual or divine power. Wind, cold weather, and avalanches are physical, natural phenomena. Even if you think the avalanche theory is imaginary, that makes it a disputed hypothesis—not a mystical theory. There is nothing spiritual about freezing to death.

[amashilu]

When forum members write that they reject mystical theories, they themselves don't realize they're putting forward mystical theories.
The Dyatlov group mysteriously perishes from wind and snow. A mystical, imaginary avalanche descends on the tourists' tent. Then they mystically freeze to death.

All of this is constructed in the mind, as if this is how it should be. Do you have a more rational explanation?

You have a point.

I believe that nothing should be ruled out in this Dyatlov Mystery. It was an unusual event or events that led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.

think we need to clear up the definitions here. You are mixing up 'mystical' with 'mysterious' or 'unproven.'The word mystical comes from the Greek mystikos, meaning a secret spiritual or divine power. Wind, cold weather, and avalanches are physical, natural phenomena. Even if you think the avalanche theory is imaginary, that makes it a disputed hypothesis—not a mystical theory. There is nothing spiritual about freezing to death.

I read Axelrod's comment to mean that an avalanche-freezing theory is so impossible, it is actually out of the realm of even the hypothetical, and we should look for something more realistic.

[Ziljoe]

I read Axelrod's comment to mean that an avalanche-freezing theory is so impossible, it is actually out of the realm of even the hypothetical, and we should look for something more realistic.

An avalanche or snow slide is not impossible. But let's park that thought for a minute . Freezing to death is highly possible, it's what's written in the autopsy. A snow slip , slide , wind driven build up of snow is the most probable and I doubt scientists would say impossible, hence why they look at , snow , wind , ultra sound as a cause.

So I'm interested to read what is more realistic from axelrod without mystical theories or sarapuk with UFOs , yetis and cattle mutilations. 

So pleased define your and axelrods definition of realistic .

[Senior Maldonado]

I'm interested to read what is more realistic

Then you are welcome to listen to Petr Bartolomey. He keeps saying that the slope, where Dyatlov pitched his tent on Feb 1st, had a strong thermal impact. Area of about 500 x 500 meters became icy, the groups' footprints were fixed into ice and had been staying intact for about 2 months.

[Ziljoe]

I'm interested to read what is more realistic

Then you are welcome to listen to Petr Bartolomey. He keeps saying that the slope, where Dyatlov pitched his tent on Feb 1st, had a strong thermal impact. Area of about 500 x 500 meters became icy, the groups' footprints were fixed into ice and had been staying intact for about 2 months.

Thank you. Certainly a realistic hypothesis
 
There is speculation by Petr Bartolomey that it was caused by fuel etc but there are no remains or debris.

That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.

This is my understanding at least. It's the altitude , the speed and distance that  prohibits the possibility. Fuel can't get anywhere near the slope or the atmosphere. It's either used up on the launch where the r12  only travels 200km horizontaly until it hits the upper atmosphere. If there was any residual fuel and a leak in the upper atmosphere it would just get lost there and it would be a small amount. If it fell back to earth at 8000 mph , the fuel would get burnt up instantly with the speeds involved. ?

[GlennM]

Then too, if it was the rocket's chemicals I liquid or vaporous form, it would coat or infiltrate the tent. Given how long the tent existed after the February event, surely an odor, stain or holes would indicate contamination. Additionally, though much has been made of radioactive contaminated clothes, absolutely nothing ever pointed to the tent being exposed to beta contamination. We can surmise that if the tent was not contaminated through these vectors and given that the tent had the widest surface area of any item on the hike, it is a certainty that chemical or radiological contamination did not cause the evacuation.

We understand that contamination can be washed from fabric. This example was used in determining the effect of rinsing radioactive clothes. The operant word is rinsing, which implies running water.  We know that not to be the case on 1079. Too, those familiar with chemistry understand the extreme corrosive news of nitric acid. Anyone familiar with blood and food stains, can appreciate that once infiltrated in canvas, it will linger.

If the 500 by500 area Maldonado mentions was supposed to be snow melted to ice from an aerial detonation, is interesting. Perhaps it might even be testable. I am doubtful.

As a final pile on, I discount the argument that the tent was struck by a tree and conspirators moved it to 1079. It is impossible for a tree to crush a tent and leave no trace. I find it impossible to believe hikers could be crushed in the tent under a fallen tree and not blood stain the tent interior. I can easily believe they could be crushed under snow and not bleed.

[Senior Maldonado]

I discount the argument that the tent was struck by a tree and conspirators moved it to 1079. It is impossible for a tree to crush a tent and leave no trace. I find it impossible to believe hikers could be crushed in the tent under a fallen tree and not blood stain the tent interior.

Completely true. Trees have nothing to do with DPI. Of course, we should keep in mind the Cedar tree, which the hikers used as a source of dry branches for the fire. The key point is that the tent was pitched on the slope by the group. It had never been moved, and it was discovered on its original place by two UPI students on Feb 26th.

That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.

What you say is correct, one-stage rocket would have reached the Pass with nearly empty tanks. That means R-12 and other one-stage rockets can be safely excluded. The focus should be on multi-stage rockets, where the last stage is expected to start its engine high in atmosphere and far from the launching pad. Up to that point the last stage keeps its tanks full. Also, at that point the previous stage separates and falls on the ground. That means that zones of stages separation should be set over remote and low populated areas, and North Urals is a good candidate.

Most probably, we face a non-public Moon mission, where they made an attempt to send to the Moon a probe with primitive nuclear engine or nuclear electricity generator. The Jan 2nd Moon mission was a partial success, and to reach full success in a month, at the time of Communist Party congress, was quite obvious goal.

[Ziljoe]

That to me is a problem as how any fuel get distributed in the air or on the slope. My understanding is that the r 12 rocket is one stage plus its war head. The launch sites are specific and remote. The distance means the fuel would be spent , the fuel stage is traveling at 8000 mph , as it hits the earns atmosphere again it basically goes through a very violent process and ultimately collapses . The only parts that would hit the ground are heavy engine parts and piping, they would be scattered over the area with deep impact holes.

What you say is correct, one-stage rocket would have reached the Pass with nearly empty tanks. That means R-12 and other one-stage rockets can be safely excluded. The focus should be on multi-stage rockets, where the last stage is expected to start its engine high in atmosphere and far from the launching pad. Up to that point the last stage keeps its tanks full. Also, at that point the previous stage separates and falls on the ground. That means that zones of stages separation should be set over remote and low populated areas, and North Urals is a good candidate.

Most probably, we face a non-public Moon mission, where they made an attempt to send to the Moon a probe with primitive nuclear engine or nuclear electricity generator. The Jan 2nd Moon mission was a partial success, and to reach full success in a month, at the time of Communist Party congress, was quite obvious goal.

The first stages fall short of the pass, the rocket flies up to the atmosphere in an arc. The only stage that can be above the pass is firing it's stage and burning fuel.

The Re-entry Incineration wall If that third stage suffered a catastrophic failure right above the pass, two things happen:In Space: Because it is in a vacuum, any ruptured tank would cause the fuel to instantly flash-boil into a cloud of tiny frozen gas crystals that disperses into orbit. It cannot fall downward as a liquid.On the Way Down: For any structural pieces to fall back to Earth, they must plunge back through the atmosphere at Mach 20. The resulting friction creates a 2,000°C plasma furnace. The thin aluminum tanks would violently buckle, shred, and vaporize miles up in the sky. Any residual fuel would be instantly incinerated.  I believe the Luna/R-7 space launches ran on Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene—not the highly toxic nitric acid that rocket theorists blame for the "chemical ice." Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.Even with a multi-stage space failure, the laws of aerodynamics and thermodynamics dictate that nothing liquid could ever make it down to the tent area.

This is my problem with any concept of a rocket involved. It's either too big, too far away or too high and the physics doesn't work. I've looked at the missiles from submarines and artillery. The only possibility is some kind of flying aircraft but we have no wreckage. 

[Senior Maldonado]

Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.

AI can argue with you a little bit:

"A high-pressure kerosene leak can create a fine aerosol or mist cloud. If that cloud mixes with air or oxygen and finds an ignition source, it can cause a flash fire or vapor cloud explosion. Near a rocket, there are many possible ignition sources: sparks, static electricity, hot surfaces, or open flames."

"Kerosene itself is not very volatile at room temperature, but in rocketry it is often hot, pressurized, sprayed as a mist, and used near liquid oxygen. Under those conditions, a kerosene cloud can explode, especially if ignition is delayed or if fuel and oxidizer mix outside the engine."

"A simplified combustion reaction:
Kerosene + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O + energy"

So, products of kerosene combustion are CO₂ which simply goes to the air, H₂O which can pour snowy slope and fix footprints in ice, and energy which can throw unlucky people on the stones.

[Ziljoe]

Liquid oxygen evaporates into invisible gas, and kerosene leaves a highly pungent, greasy oil slick. The 1959 searchers found completely pristine, odorless snow, and zero metal debris or impact craters.

AI can argue with you a little bit:

"A high-pressure kerosene leak can create a fine aerosol or mist cloud. If that cloud mixes with air or oxygen and finds an ignition source, it can cause a flash fire or vapor cloud explosion. Near a rocket, there are many possible ignition sources: sparks, static electricity, hot surfaces, or open flames."

"Kerosene itself is not very volatile at room temperature, but in rocketry it is often hot, pressurized, sprayed as a mist, and used near liquid oxygen. Under those conditions, a kerosene cloud can explode, especially if ignition is delayed or if fuel and oxidizer mix outside the engine."

"A simplified combustion reaction:
Kerosene + O₂ → CO₂ + H₂O + energy"

So, products of kerosene combustion are CO₂ which simply goes to the air, H₂O which can pour snowy slope and fix footprints in ice, and energy which can throw unlucky people on the stones.

Don't worry , I argue with AI. I've been trying to find a model that works.



 your AI quotes are perfectly correct about how kerosene behaves inside a factory or a pressurized engine compartment, but they seem to fall apart when applied to a rocket miles high in the open, freezing Siberian atmosphere.Here is the actual science that disproves this "exploding kerosene water" theory:1. The "Water" Would Be a Blinding Flash of Vapor, Not RainThe AI notes that kerosene combustion produces \(H_{2}O\) (water) and energy. However, because a rocket explosion releases massive, instantaneous thermal energy (thousands of degrees), that water is created as superheated, invisible gas vapor (steam).In a sub-zero, high-wind alpine environment, that steam would instantly flash-freeze into microscopic ice crystals and blow away in the wind like a puff of smoke. It would not neatly descend through the air as a concentrated liquid downpour to delicately "fix" individual footprints on the ground.2. A Vapor Explosion Leaves Heavy Carbon SootThe reaction formula your AI provided is a perfect combustion model. In the real world, rocket explosions are highly imperfect and messy. When kerosene explodes in the open air, it produces massive amounts of unburned carbon (soot) and black smoke.If a kerosene flash fire or explosion had occurred close enough to the ground to throw the hikers onto the stones, the snowpack, the trees, the canvas tent, and the hikers' clothes and skin would have been heavily coated in thick, oily, jet-black soot. The 1959 searchers found completely white, pristine, odorless snow and clean clothing.3. Blast Injuries vs. The Autopsy Reality .if the "energy" from this kerosene blast threw the unlucky hikers onto the stones, causing their famous fractures. This contradicts basic forensic pathology:No External Trauma: A vapor cloud explosion powerful enough to fracture a human skull and shatter ribs would cause massive external blast trauma. It would blow out the hikers' eardrums, burn their hair, scorch their skin, and shred their thin clothing.The Medical Verdict: Dr. Boris Vozrozhdenny, the original 1959 coroner, explicitly noted that the severe internal injuries (like Dubinina and Zolotaryov’s shattered ribs) had zero external bruising, zero burns, and zero blast marks. He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.At the end of the day, using an AI to find generic combustion equations doesn't change the laws of thermodynamics on Kholat Syakhl. A supersonic, burning rocket failure miles high in the air cannot neatly manufacture liquid water to freeze footprints while simultaneously leaving the snow perfectly white and odorless.

The rocket stage can't get to the pass in a form that can hold fuel.

[Senior Maldonado]

He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.

It's a pity, but in the documents available in the case files the medical expert did not speak about a slab of snow or an avalanche. For Thibo he suggested a blast of wind throwing him on the rocks or an automobile at speed. For Lyudmila and Semyon he suggested a blast airwave. As far as I know, Bartolomey says "no avalanche", and the same with Sogrin and Karelin. And these are people, who came to the slope one of the first and had chance to see the setup close to initial one.

Lack of soot is very strong argument against kerosene burning, I agree. That's why I prefer to consider the 3rd stage to be an experimental nuclear powered module on hydrogen. Hydrogen combustion formula is even simpler:
2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + energy
No soot is expected, when hydrogen burns.

[SURI]

Ivanov
"Someone needed to frighten or punish people, or show their strength, and they did this, killing three people."

Anyone who believes Ivanov's letters doesn't need to deal with rockets, avalanches, or snow slabs. These things don't purposefully punish or kill anyone. That is why it can't work out for either of you. The evidence points in a completely different direction.

[Senior Maldonado]

@SURI

My approach is that we should not be selective in what Lev Ivanov had said. We should accept that he did not have a solid theory what had happened at the Pass. Here is his quote:

"To the correspondent’s question, have I changed my view of the causes of death of the hikers over these thirty years, I replied that I only changed my view of the impact technique. If earlier I believed that the ball exploded, releasing completely unknown, but radioactive energy, now I believe that the action of the energy from the ball was selective, it was aimed only at three people."

And impact technique is very important, as "ball explosion" and "aimed attack" trace back to completely different root causes. Aimed attack means deliberate killing, while ball explosion most proibably means an accident. Ivanov's problem was that he did not manage to define right order of hikers' deaths. He believed that Ravine-4 died first, when the whole group kept together. That's why he talks about selective attack. If we assume that Ravine-4 were the last to survive, then any non-selective explosion would kill them and only them.

[SURI]

@Senior Maldonado

Ivanov knew exactly what had happened.

"I know all the details of this incident."

And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.

"...and many associated these mysterious phenomena, including unidentified flying objects with military tests, but investigative actions indicated that the case of Dyatlov group had nothing to do with military tests."

Therefore, it is first necessary to correctly determine the nature of these "balls" that possessed a motive.

"It is only necessary not to hush up their appearance, but to deeply understand their nature."

[Senior Maldonado]

And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.

There was no motive at all for anybody to kill 8 UPI students and ex-students, as well as a war veteran. Who might have wanted to kill Zina, for instance? And even if somebody had wanted, a normal criminal case with number would have been created, the criminal would have been captured and sentenced to death publicly. But we have very different story.

[SURI]

And at the forefront of it all was a motive. It seems you didn't fully understand his sentence and, consequently, failed to decipher what kind of "balls" he was actually talking about.

There was no motive at all for anybody to kill 8 UPI students and ex-students, as well as a war veteran. Who might have wanted to kill Zina, for instance? And even if somebody had wanted, a normal criminal case with number would have been created, the criminal would have been captured and sentenced to death publicly. But we have very different story.

Typical denial of facts that don't fit your narrative. Ivanov knew best whether a motive existed, and he explicitly mentioned it. The case file without a number stands as evidence against the perpetrators. As for why the perpetrators were never sentenced, you can find the answer directly in Ivanov’s letters. The "different story" you are talking about exists only in your imagination.

"...and many associated these mysterious phenomena, including unidentified flying objects with military tests, but investigative actions indicated that the case of Dyatlov group had nothing to do with military tests."

[Ziljoe]

He explicitly concluded that the trauma was caused by a continuous, massive hydrostatic pressure—exactly like being compressed under a heavy slab of packed snow or an avalanche—not a sudden, concussive military explosion.

It's a pity, but in the documents available in the case files the medical expert did not speak about a slab of snow or an avalanche. For Thibo he suggested a blast of wind throwing him on the rocks or an automobile at speed. For Lyudmila and Semyon he suggested a blast airwave. As far as I know, Bartolomey says "no avalanche", and the same with Sogrin and Karelin. And these are people, who came to the slope one of the first and had chance to see the setup close to initial one.

Lack of soot is very strong argument against kerosene burning, I agree. That's why I prefer to consider the 3rd stage to be an experimental nuclear powered module on hydrogen. Hydrogen combustion formula is even simpler:
2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O + energy
No soot is expected, when hydrogen burns.

Regarding the comments of the medical expert. , they are below. We have the sustained bleeding into the lungs. This is constant with a continuous crushing force . It is what is found in victims of compression or land slides and collapsed snow caves. It is the foam and bleeding during life that imply their chests were being compressed after the initial trauma. There is no evidence of a blast wave in other injuries reported that would be easily found.

The aforementioned multiple rib fractures, accompanied by bleeding into the pleural cavity, occurred during Zolotarev's life and are the result of a strong force being applied to his chest during his fall, compression, or being thrown.

The said damage was probably caused by an impact of great force causing severe closed lethal trauma to the chest of Dubinina. The trauma was caused during life and is the result of high force impact with subsequent fall, throw or bruise to the chest of Dubinina. I think that the death of Dubinina was caused by massive hemorrhage into the right ventricle, multiple bilateral rib fractures, and internal bleeding into the thoracic cavity.

The above-mentioned extensive comminuted fracture of the base and the vault of the cranium are of in vivo origin and are the result of a great force with the subsequent falling, hurling and concussion of Thibeaux-Brignolle

The extensive, depressed, multi-splintered (broken fornix and base of the skull) fracture could be the result of an impact of an automobile moving at high speed

These injuries, especially appearing in such a way without any damage to the soft tissue of the chest, are very similar to the type of trauma that results from the shock wave of a bomb.


The problem with any rocket stage getting near the pass is how they work. The need a main launge pad, we only have two. For the remotest possibility for the last stage to get over the pass it needs to be cruising in the upper atmosphere, if it comes down from there it's traveling at speed and breaks up . The rocket stage can't get there by a lower alltiduded as it would break up against the density of the air at lower altitudes . The acceleration is the problem. The previous photos you sent of largely intact rocket stages are the first stages of modern rockets that don't go into the upper atmosphere.

That's my problem with it anyway. How do we get a rocket stage above the pass that's not travelling at 7000mph and 200km up in the air?

[GlennM]

I have trouble with any sort of blast or detonation..What is overlooked is the cardinal sign of blast damage, ruptured ear drums. None of them had ruptured ear drums! None had blood issuing from their ears. Case histories tell us that with blast damage to ears, equilibrium is compromised. You do not produce a linear trail in the snow of a mile made by those with vertigo. No demonstrable blast damage affected anybody at the tent, nor the tent itself..

The same energy that blows out ear drums also compresses organs, notably lungs. If you can not breathe owing to damaged bloody lungs you are not going to walk a mile. You are certainly not going to turn around and climb back toward the tent with blast lung. There was nobody found with an apron of blood on their outerwear. Additionally, blast lung is not selective. If one is affected, so are others. Again, the evidence of the bodies speaks to selective injuries.

Bones break and limbs get severed owing to projectile debris. Limbs were not broken on victims, nor trees.

A detonation will result in observable burns and/or chemical damage. We find no burned faces, scorched clothes nor damage to the tent consistent with a blast making thermal or chemical burns. Campfire burns to fingers and toes, yes, detonation , no.

What we have an abundance of is damage consistent with exposure to cold and failed attempts to cope with it, including crushed bodies from snow at the ravine.

When the pathologist opines that Zolo and Lyuda have injuries reminiscent of a blast or a sudden impact, what is not said is that all the R4 group should have been hit and propelled backwards. That is not what we find. Being crushed from the front or pressed from the back are equally likely. They are two sides of the same coin. A crushed snow cave or tunnel pressing it's victim against hard ground can not be ruled out. This is compression from the back affecting the front.

My position is that weather drove them out of the tent. They underestimated both the distance and duration. Those who made a fire sustained burns. Those who dug a snow cave got crushed. Those who thought they could return to the tent could not stand the weather. All natural, all understandable all necessitating no outside agency.